Irrelevant. The actual injuries don't need to be life threatening to trigger a reasonable enough fear that would legitimate the use of deadly force in self defense.

People need to stop acting like they know what happened that night. Was Zimmerman a good guy attacked by a thug who defended himself? Was he a vigilante who gunned down someone without justification? Based on what we know from media reports, either is possible. Let the evidence come in at trial, and determine reasonable doubt from there. Then let the evidence come in at the inevitable civil suit, and examine it based on the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.

If I had to bet, right now, I say he gets a criminal verdict in his favor and a civil verdict against him, just based on the differing standards. But I don't know.

Palmetto asked me a question and I answered it. This goes back to what is and isn't indisputable and Zimmerman shooting Martin is the only indisputable fact right now.

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Irrelevant. The actual injuries don't need to be life threatening to trigger a reasonable enough fear that would legitimate the use of deadly force in self defense.

People need to stop acting like they know what happened that night. Was Zimmerman a good guy attacked by a thug who defended himself? Was he a vigilante who gunned down someone without justification? Based on what we know from media reports, either is possible. Let the evidence come in at trial, and determine reasonable doubt from there. Then let the evidence come in at the inevitable civil suit, and examine it based on the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.

If I had to bet, right now, I say he gets a criminal verdict in his favor and a civil verdict against him, just based on the differing standards. But I don't know.

Zimmerman still has a potential defense here. He had a broken nose and various cuts and bruises. He was obviously in some sort of altercation that night. I don't believe he had enough time to beat himself up and try to make a play that it was self defense knowing that he could be in deep trouble? Whether the jury will excuse him completely for killing the man remains to be seen.

It really depends on who the jury is at heart, if they truly believe that Zimmerman thought his life was in danger then he should be completely acquitted. But I really don't think it will work out that way.

The jury will likely compromise on a lesser offense so they can show they exerted "justice", meanwhile knowing they would never be able to agree completely that it was second degree murder.

Irrelevant. The actual injuries don't need to be life threatening to trigger a reasonable enough fear that would legitimate the use of deadly force in self defense.

People need to stop acting like they know what happened that night. Was Zimmerman a good guy attacked by a thug who defended himself? Was he a vigilante who gunned down someone without justification? Based on what we know from media reports, either is possible. Let the evidence come in at trial, and determine reasonable doubt from there. Then let the evidence come in at the inevitable civil suit, and examine it based on the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.

If I had to bet, right now, I say he gets a criminal verdict in his favor and a civil verdict against him, just based on the differing standards. But I don't know.

Absent any new evidence at the trial I don't see how it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution here and I haven't seen anything that can refute Zimmerman's story as of this moment. None of us know what evidence will be presented at trial however so this can change.

Absent any new evidence at the trial I don't see how it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution here and I haven't seen anything that can refute Zimmerman's story as of this moment. None of us know what evidence will be presented at trial however so this can change.

Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin. You start a fight and then claim self defense is pretty tough. Who knows.

Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin. You start a fight and then claim self defense is pretty tough. Who knows.

Does following someone constitute starting a fight? And how did he confront him? Words or physicality.

I would think whoever threw the first punch is the one who started the fight. I assume Zimmerman says that was Martin and unfortunately Martin is not here to tell his side. Tough to prove.

Zimmerman had what appeared to be a broken nose and cuts on the back of his head. I am no expert but I would think those wounds are consistent with getting beat up by someone that is on top of you. And if that was the case Zimmerman can claim he was in fear for his life and the use of the gun was justified.

I agree with doggin. In a vacuum, based on what I have read, I think Zimmerman would be cleared of criminal charges but would be subject to civil penalties. But we do not live in a vacuum and this case has been highly sensationalized.

Irrelevant. The actual injuries don't need to be life threatening to trigger a reasonable enough fear that would legitimate the use of deadly force in self defense.

People need to stop acting like they know what happened that night. Was Zimmerman a good guy attacked by a thug who defended himself? Was he a vigilante who gunned down someone without justification? Based on what we know from media reports, either is possible. Let the evidence come in at trial, and determine reasonable doubt from there. Then let the evidence come in at the inevitable civil suit, and examine it based on the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.

If I had to bet, right now, I say he gets a criminal verdict in his favor and a civil verdict against him, just based on the differing standards. But I don't know.

Does it play into at all that Zimmerman was a self appointed volunteer to prevent crime in his area. That he thought this guy was a criminal and made a call to 911 and than pursued him all while carrying a gun.

Zimmerman thought this kid was a criminal and pursued him with a gun. I don't know about most self defense claims but I'm guessing the statistics point toward the pursuer not the pursued as being the one defended against.

Most people who would have a legit claim of self defense are rarely following someone they have already acknowledged as dangerous and potentially a criminal. The notion of self defense is based to some extent on initiation of contact. In this case everything points toward Zimmerman initiating as part of his mind set as neighborhood watch, carrying a gun and pursuing after calling it into police. Might that point not just away from self defense but toward pre-meditation?

It seems to me Zimmerman claim of self defense after he pursued is suspect even if he was confronted after he initiated pursuit.

1) He cornered Martin (false imprisonment) in order to "hold" him until the police arrived, Martin tried to push past him, Zimmerman got physical, fight ensued

2) He pulled a gun on Martin, Martin knocked it away and jumped him, figuring he was fighting for his life

3) He put his hands on Martin, Martin responded

Are any of these what happened? No clue. I wasn't there.

Point 1. Is it false imprisonment IF you have been empowered by residents as a watchman? Can I as a homeowner detain a trespasser while the police are en route?
Don't know if he was holding or just tagging along and shooing him out.

Point 1. Is it false imprisonment IF you have been empowered by residents as a watchman? Can I as a homeowner detain a trespasser while the police are en route?
Don't know if he was holding or just tagging along and shooing him out.

We'll never know points 2 or 3. Zimm would never admit either.

Exactly the point. He was doing his job. Not sure the jury would see it that way by the letter of the law, but based on what has been reported, he was doing what was required of him as a watchman.

Please stop pretending that Zimmerman is a hero, he's a moron and killed a unarmed kid.

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Does following someone constitute starting a fight? And how did he confront him? Words or physicality.

I would think whoever threw the first punch is the one who started the fight. I assume Zimmerman says that was Martin and unfortunately Martin is not here to tell his side. Tough to prove.

Zimmerman had what appeared to be a broken nose and cuts on the back of his head. I am no expert but I would think those wounds are consistent with getting beat up by someone that is on top of you. And if that was the case Zimmerman can claim he was in fear for his life and the use of the gun was justified.

I agree with doggin. In a vacuum, based on what I have read, I think Zimmerman would be cleared of criminal charges but would be subject to civil penalties. But we do not live in a vacuum and this case has been highly sensationalized.

Does it play into at all that Zimmerman was a self appointed volunteer to prevent crime in his area. That he thought this guy was a criminal and made a call to 911 and than pursued him all while carrying a gun.

Zimmerman thought this kid was a criminal and pursued him with a gun. I don't know about most self defense claims but I'm guessing the statistics point toward the pursuer not the pursued as being the one defended against.

No, it doesn't play in. The same way Trayvon's history doesn't change the fact that he had a right not to be shot for simply walking around in a hoodie, that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and had a (legal) gun doesn't change his entitlement to use that gun in self defense if it was Trayvon that started the physical altercation and he was in reasonable fear for his life.

Most people who would have a legit claim of self defense are rarely following someone they have already acknowledged as dangerous and potentially a criminal. The notion of self defense is based to some extent on initiation of contact. In this case everything points toward Zimmerman initiating as part of his mind set as neighborhood watch, carrying a gun and pursuing after calling it into police. Might that point not just away from self defense but toward pre-meditation?

Highly unlikely that it points towards premeditation, and zero - zero - chance Zimmerman is convicted of murder rather than manslaughter on that basis alone (if there is indeed evidence that Martin was on the ground and shot by a standing Zimmerman while begging for his life, that would be a different story.

In any event, no. It really has nothing at all to do with self defense, because I am entitled to follow you wherever I damn well please while in public, even if I'm armed, and even if the police say its unnecessary. There's no forfeiting a right to self defense arising out of that.

Point 1. Is it false imprisonment IF you have been empowered by residents as a watchman? Can I as a homeowner detain a trespasser while the police are en route?

If he's trespassing on your property, I believe so. On a public street because you think someone is suspicious? No.

We'll never know points 2 or 3. Zimm would never admit either.

That's my point. You can't look at the physical evidence and say "oh, this must have happened" - which makes the people screaming "Zimmerman is clearly innocent" as ridiculous to me as the ones screaming that he's obviously guilty.

Let's let all of the evidence come in and decide from there. And "decide" will likely mean nothing more than saying either "he probably didn't do it, but he might have" (not guilty, not civilly liable, but always under suspicion) or "he probably did it, but I'm not sure" (not guilty but civilly liable).

Anyone who is looking for a definitive ending from this is probably going to be disappointed.

Since none of us our privy to the real evidence that the jury will be presented I still don't get the relevance of the "Thug" Nature of Martin. Are you suggesting that "Thugs" like deer should have a hunting season on them to thin the herd?

Lots of things could have happened. He could have hunted this kid down, he may have shot him in the back if the kid didn't turn around. Perhaps confronted with shooting the kid face to face he lost his balance? Not everyone can shoot an unarmed person when actually confronted. If that's the case it's premeditated murder. It could have been self defense and it could have been something in between.

Being a "Thug" doesn't give someone the right to hunt them down and shoot them just because they were a "Thug". An unarmed kid was shoot to death by a guy who hunted him with a gun. The news media turned this into something a little crazy. Maybe in a courtroom the jury with the help of the Judge and the attorneys will figure this thing out? Probably not but its worth a shot in the dark.

Agreed.

Both arguments are plausible.

To me the question is (and it won’t be answered in this trial) …are we ok with folks who are not police and are not trained acting as police?

Please stop pretending that Zimmerman is a hero, he's a moron and killed a unarmed kid.

Whoa. Where did I say he was a hero? If you are asking me for a personal opinion of Zimmerman I would say that he is a p*ssy that used bad judgement. But he falls short of being a murderer.

TBH I am no longer following the case. This will become a small scale OJ trial and no matter the evidence the court of public opinion will never be swayed one way or the other. Just hope that it doesn't pollute the jury.

The only thing I am still trying to figure out is what a White Hispanic is. And is there a such thing as a Black Hispanic?